Despite recent issues with the Chevrolet Volt's battery, GM expects increased Volt sales for November and a recent survey found that Volt customers are satisfied. A GOP lawmaker may, however, ruin EV success by fighting the $7,500 tax credit

General Motors Co. may have hit a few speed bumps this year with the Chevrolet Volt extended-range EV's battery-related incidents, but things seem to be looking up with an expected increase in November Volt sales and a recent survey that confirmed Volt customer satisfaction.

The Chevrolet Volt had its best-ever sales month in October 2011, but according to GM Spokesman Jim Cain, November Volt sales are expected to surpass the previous month.

In October, GM sold 1,108 Volts, which was the first time it had outsold the Nissan Leaf EV since April. For the year through October, GM sold a total of 5,003 Volts.

Experts say that it is now very unlikely that GM will meet its sales goal of 10,000 Volts sold in 2011, but GM predicts increased sales in November over the month of October. The final sales figures for November have not yet been released.

Perhaps the reason for increased sales expectations is Volt customer satisfaction. According to a recent survey by Consumer Reports, Chevrolet Volt owners "love their cars."

The Consumer Reports survey, which was released Thursday, is based on over 314,000 opinions of 2009-2012 model year vehicles. The survey found that 93 percent of Volt owners who participated said they'd buy the EV again.

However, the survey was conducted only a few months after the Volt hit showrooms, and mainly consisted of early buyers and enthusiasts. The survey was also taken before the formal investigation of Volt/lithium battery safety began.

Earlier this year, the Volt underwent a series of tests at a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) facility in Wisconsin. Three weeks after a side-impact crash test on May 12, the Volt went up in flames while parked at the facility, catching nearby vehicles on fire.

This sparked a NHTSA investigation, where three more Volts were tested November 16, 17 and 18. One battery had normal results while another emitted sparks and smoke, and the third caught on fire one week later. The NHTSA is now conducting a formal investigation of the vehicle's safety.

The Volt may be seeing the upside of a nasty situation for now with a potential sales increase and customer satisfaction, but one GOP lawmaker is looking to throw a wrench in the EV industry's success by fighting the $7,500 tax credit.

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) told Congress Wednesday that he wants the $7,500 tax credit for EVs to cease because he says electric vehicles have not met desired goals and the tax credit only benefits the wealthy. He specifically noted that the annual income of Volt owners is $175,000.

"[The Volt] has become the poster child of President Obama's failed green agenda," said Kelly. "Like many green initiatives promoted by this administration and bankrolled by the American taxpayer, the electric car is better in theory than in practice; has limited consumer demand; is heavily subsidized; and has fallen short of reaching targeted goals. Despite the fact that the federal government has no business subsidizing a product that a manufacturer could just as easily promote through rebates and other buyer incentives, the tax subsidies are largely going to the affluent few who can actually afford to buy an electric car, which costs anywhere between $40,000 and $97,000."

Kelly's "like many other green initiatives promoted by this administration" comment was more than likely referring to this year's Solyndra disaster, where the U.S. government loaned solar panel company Solyndra $535 million in 2009 despite warnings that the company would go bankrupt. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy on September 6, 2011.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or what. Those early adopters should pay the $40,000 instead of the govt forcing us ALL to be early adopters, whether we end up owning the car or not. We all bought them in part with our tax dollars but only those that plunk down the $30,000+ end up owning them.

Personally, I think if the Volt was the same cost as its ICE-only counterpart, it would be a great idea. However, spending an extra 15k (or more) on a car to save a few k on gas over several years is idiotic (meaning if the decision was purely economic, it's a bad decision to buy a Volt). The only reason someone would buy it would be to wear it as a "green" badge of honor. If you desire to wear that badge, by all means, buy a Volt. But please stop asking me to pitch in to pay for your car.

quote: Personally, I think if the Volt was the same cost as its ICE-only counterpart, it would be a great idea.

You expect a car with an electric drive and ICE to be the same price as one with just an ICE? That's not realistic.

quote: But please stop asking me to pitch in to pay for your car.

Subsidizing new technology allows it to gain a foothold in the market, where economies of scale gradually take over and make the technology self sustainable. At this point, everyone is better off.

quote: However, spending an extra 15k (or more) on a car to save a few k on gas over several years is idiotic

The Volt is more luxurious than a typical $25k compact, but even in your example, the payback period is 7.5 years, maybe 10 years with the cost of money. Not unreasonable.

It's also a bad economic decision to buy a V8-powered Land Cruiser or to pay $1000 for "silver-buffed wood" on an Infiniti. Obviously buying a car is an emotional decision, so its not far to judge the Volt only on it's economic payback period just because it has one.

Also, it'd be naive to assume gas prices won't rise again.

The Volt isn't perfect. But I defend it because for once, an American company has the most advanced technology in the market and it works - in too many industries, and for too long in the automotive industry, the American companies have always been a step behind. It's refreshing, and I hope it succeeds. We're falling behind in the global economy, and innovation is the only way we can get back on top.

Every industry has R&D costs with developing and marketing a new product. The auto industry is a multi-billion dollar industry (GM alone received a $50 billion bailout). They are the ones who should be footing the bill for developing new technology, not the taxpayer. There's no reason taxpayers should be forced to hand over money to multi-billion dollar companies.

quote: The Volt is more luxurious than a typical $25k compact, but even in your example, the payback period is 7.5 years, maybe 10 years with the cost of money. Not unreasonable.

Not realistic either. I don't expect that many people who bought this car are using it for a long daily commute so extend that time out to 10 to 15 years. Most people who I know in CA that want one only have about a 5 mile drive to work and at that rate it would be much longer.

quote: It's also a bad economic decision to buy a V8-powered Land Cruiser or to pay $1000 for "silver-buffed wood" on an Infiniti.

Granted, I wouldn't do that either, but back to the point, I also would not expect Uncle Sam to give buyers of a Infiniti or Land Cruiser a kickback either.

Granted, it was cheaper under previous administrations. But I see that as an indictment of the current Bozo in the White House, who has gone out of his way to stifle exploration and stoke uncertainty in the industry.

quote: You expect a car with an electric drive and ICE to be the same price as one with just an ICE? That's not realistic.

Actually I couldn't care less what it costs. If it's too expensive (it is) then I'll just get something else.

quote: It's also a bad economic decision to buy a V8-powered Land Cruiser or to pay $1000 for "silver-buffed wood" on an Infiniti. Obviously buying a car is an emotional decision , so its not far to judge the Volt only on it's economic payback period just because it has one.

I don't see it that way. Perhaps if I had more cash than I knew what to do with then it would be an emotional decision. Or maybe if I just cared more about cars (I'm not a car guy). No, for me, it's about getting from point A to point B safely and cost-effectively. Dropping 30 or 40k on a new vehicle - any vehicle - just isn't a realistic option in my mind, when I can get my family and my stuff back and forth for so much less with a decent used vehicle. I'm glad so many other people are willing to take that 50% drop in value in the first several years of owning a new car, though.

quote: However, spending an extra 15k (or more) on a car to save a few k on gas over several years is idiotic (meaning if the decision was purely economic, it's a bad decision to buy a Volt). The only reason someone would buy it would be to wear it as a "green" badge of honor. If you desire to wear that badge, by all means, buy a Volt. But please stop asking me to pitch in to pay for your car.

So let me get this straight, you don't think there should be an incentive, but you outright admit that nobody is going to buy the car (outside of those wanting to wear the green badge) if it costs 40K.

We are talking about technology that needs to supplant another with over 100 years of technological (let alone manufacturing) improvements. Unless you want to wait another 50 years, some kind of incentive has to be offered.

Not saying its justified (if the power comes from the grid you are still paying for it, not sure if any kind of cost benefit has been performed) but you are clearly missing the point of why it was implemented in the first place.

Many of the technological improvements you use everyday, could have been years away if not for government subsidy, just remember that...

All of this said, why is it being offered now? I'm pretty sure GM is producing as many Volt's as they can, and would sell for 40k to the normal early adopters just as easily without the incentive. It should be removed until the incentive will actually help drive sales. i.e Until manufacturers increase production and start having trouble moving these vehicles at 40k, until then mass adoption is not really under way anyways.

quote: So let me get this straight, you don't think there should be an incentive, but you outright admit that nobody is going to buy the car (outside of those wanting to wear the green badge) if it costs 40K.

Well, as others who defend the tax credit here have pointed out, the Volt is considered a "luxury" car. So to answer your question, NO, I absolutely do not think the govt should be handing out tax incentives for luxury items.

so question for you. when ICE cars were just starting to suplant the standard for the day in 1880's (horses and horse draw carrage), did the government substidize Americans to buy these new devices? Anwser: NO NO and NO.

It was only until 1913 when Ford mastered the assymbly line did the cost of cars come down to the point where it was economical for the average person to own.

**************

How about computers. In the 1970's, when personal computers were just coming about. did the federal government substidize the industry in order to make computers take off?

Answer: NO NO and NO

****************

How about the other great inventions of the 1900's? How many of these devices had to recieve government assistance in order to take off.

Answer: VERY FEW to NONE

*******************

The final anwser to this question is that government programs like the Volt incentinves unfairly asks every tax paying American to take on the risk for a new product.

all of the risk for the Volt should be GM and it's share holders. American tax payers should not be flipping the bill.

quote: Many of the technological improvements you use everyday, could have been years away if not for government subsidy, just remember that...

I think you're just saying that because it sounds good. I doubt you have any idea if this is true or not. Please give me a list of consumer products that we use that were helped to the market because of a tax credit.

How about research from Universities and such that receive government to create new technologies such as medicine? A lot of medical advances happen through government loans and grants to researchers and also to tax breaks for the companies for developing medications and such.